The Rule of Three: A Personal Case Study

In the summer of 2025, residents of my Florida age 55+ community neighborhood found out that we had defective shingles installed on the roofs of our six-to-seven year old homes.

 

For the past eight months, we have been on a six-step odyssey to 1. file a claim with the shingles manufacturer, TAMKO, 2. send TAMKO photos and shingle samples, 3. get our roofs inspected by TAMKO, 4. receive a settlement check (or not), 5. select a roofing company, and 6. get a new roof installed. Some neighbors were denied a monetary settlement because they were second owners or their roofs “were not damaged enough.”

 

As part of the claims settlement process, we had to hire a roofing company to take photos of our roof and remove and replace two shingle strips, which we then mailed to TAMKO in a big plastic sleeve. TAMKO then sent an inspector to personally examine our roof as a check against someone mailing them more damaged shingles than they really have.

 

We were one of the fortunate ones and received a cash settlement. Our roof was deemed “damaged enough.” We then moved on to selecting a roofing company to install a new roof. Since this was a big (~$20,000) purchase and we were unfamiliar with local contractors, I used the “Rule of Three.”

 

With the Rule of Three, you compare the features of three competing product or service vendors head-to-head with respect to criteria that matter to you. In other words, an “apples-to-apples” comparison. It works best for large occasional purchases. The last time I used the Rule of Three was selecting a septic system repair company in New Jersey to sell our home in 2019.

 

I used the Rule of Three worksheet that I developed years ago for financial education classes. Listed below are the search criteria that I used to select a new roof installer:

 

• §  Price
• §  Included and excluded services
• §  Brand of shingles used and its warranty
• §  Available Veteran’s discount
• §  Company responsiveness (or not)
• §  Workmanship warranty length
• §  Credit card merchant’s fee
• §  Company certifications
• §  Other observations (e.g., informational materials and ability to negotiate terms)

Once I collected roofing company contract proposals and cost estimates, I completed a Rule of Three worksheet and summarized the data in one place. Next, I highlighted good features (e.g., ten year workmanship warranty vs. five years) and bad features (e.g., requiring customers to remove lightning rods and satellites on their roof vs. including this as a service). The highlighted items helped determine my optimal choice, which turned out to be the middle price point.

Got a big purchase coming up? Use the Rule of Three to narrow down your options.

This post provides general personal finance or consumer decision-making information and does not address all the variables that apply to an individual’s unique situation. It does not endorse specific products or services and should not be construed as legal or financial advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.